Not all people come to the same conclusion while reviewing the same evidence.

Yet somehow the people who look at the evidence overwhelmingly come to the same conclusion. Weird, huh?

People with more knowledge are harder to convince.

You're right. People like actual scientists who specialize in climatology. As a group they would be pretty hard to convince. Yet somehow they have been.

Are you a climate scientist?

Nope. Are you? I'm not an air conditioning repairman either. But when 99 of 100 people who have been trained, experienced and specialize in repairing air conditioners tell me the same thing, I kinda think they're probably right. Then again, I'm not full of hubris.

I look at the same evidence and have come to a different conclusion.

By all means, please elaborate on how the mountains of evidence has led you to a different conclusion. I'll get the popcorn! This will be fun.

A very logical viewpoint, one that is ignored by most of the anti-gun zealots out there ...

Yea, except for that fact the your analogy totally fails in that while backpage.com can be used for all sorts of things, the only thing you can use a gun for is to kill stuff (or, in the case of target/skeet shooting, practicing to kill stuff)

> Again, that does not appear to be the case with either of the two candidates, who (at best) might just be described as agnostic to/indifferent to new technologies and somewhat ignorant on what that might mean from a policy perspective.

> and, like Clinton, he often relies on staff to print news articles off the internet.

> These are two candidates who don't have their hands on the technology

Apparently, Senator Chuck Grassley thinks so. And, hey, bad luck for, well, everyone, because Grassley just happens to be the guy in charge of moving the bill forward on the Senate side.

Is that for real? Is it really possible for a single man to block legislation in this way? On one hand it wouldn't surprise me that our corrupt system is so severely flawed, but on the other this is not the way it SHOULD be.

My apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic. It was the same time I was reading the comment above that basically said, "Lewis was the other person DA Brockler was chatting with. Duh!" as if that explains anything.

Again, my apologies.

Funny that we *still* don't know who this Lewis is. I suppose I could Google it and find out, but should I really have to? I don't think so.